Stop Reading the News: A Manifesto for a Happier, Calmer and Wiser Life

This book acts like a bucket of cold water for the digital age. Dobelli uses a sharp metaphor comparing news to sugar and books to actual nutrition, which really resonated with my recent feelings of burnout. I have been mindlessly scrolling for years, but this provided the push I needed to finally delete my news apps. Some chapters are admittedly quite short and a bit repetitive, yet the core message about protecting your 'circle of competence' is vital. If you’re feeling constantly riled up by things you can't control, give this a chance. It’s not perfect, but it is highly thought-provoking and engaging.

Ever wonder why you feel anxious after five minutes of checking the morning headlines? Dobelli explains that our brains are simply not wired for the constant stream of global tragedies that we have zero power to influence. Since finishing this, I have completely stopped watching the news and replaced that time with long-form biographies and technical books. My concentration has improved significantly and I feel much more at peace. To be fair, he wrote this before the pandemic, so some of his 'breaking news doesn't matter' logic feels slightly dated now. Regardless, the mental clarity I've gained is worth the price. It is truly life-changing.

Finally got around to this manifesto and I'm glad I did. It is a refreshing, albeit radical, take on how we consume information in the 21st century. The chapters are very short, which makes it easy to digest, though the author would probably prefer I read a massive textbook instead! I found his arguments about news killing creativity and reinforcing hindsight bias to be particularly strong. It’s a very engaging read that challenges the modern assumption that being 'informed' is a moral duty. If you're tired of the constant outrage cycle, this book offers a viable way out. I feel much lighter now that I've stopped scrolling.

Picking this up felt like a necessary intervention for my attention span. Dobelli argues that news is a toxic distraction that inhibits deep thought, and frankly, looking at my own productivity, he’s right. I appreciate the focus on long-form journalism and textbooks over the 'infotainment' that dominates our screens today. However, the book does feel slightly dated since it was written before the pandemic when breaking news actually became a matter of survival. I don't agree with every extreme conclusion, but the shift in perspective is worth it. It’s a fast read with very short, punchy chapters that get straight to the point.

After hearing so much about Dobelli’s other work, I had high expectations for this manifesto. The book is incredibly thought-provoking and makes a compelling case for why news is the 'sugar' of the information world. I especially liked the sections on how 'availability bias' ruins our ability to assess real risks in our lives. We worry about plane crashes but ignore our blood pressure. My only gripe is that it feels a bit 'boomer' in its dismissal of social media’s ability to highlight marginalized voices. Still, I’ve cut my news consumption by 90% since reading it and I don't feel less informed, just less stressed.

Truth is, I’ve reduced my news intake significantly over the years, so this book confirmed many of my own suspicions. The author is a businessman, and it shows in his efficient, no-nonsense writing style. He correctly identifies that journalists are under pressure to churn out 'eye-catching' headlines for clicks, often at the expense of the truth. This 'churnalism' is exhausting. While I think he’s too extreme in saying we should avoid all news, his points about protecting our 'circle of competence' are brilliant. It's a quick read that will make you rethink your relationship with your smartphone. I definitely felt more productive after putting it down.

Frankly, the premise is excellent but the execution left me wanting more. I agree with the author that news makes us passive and miserable by constantly highlighting tragedies we can’t fix. But his repetitive use of 'dear reader' felt like he was trying too hard to be an 18th-century novelist. It got under my skin after the tenth time. The truth is that while the book is engaging, it’s also quite repetitive; he could have easily condensed these 160 pages into a long-form essay. It’s a decent starting point for a digital detox, just be prepared for some condescending lectures along the way.

Not what I expected from a book about productivity. On one hand, the author is right that we spend too much time on 'disaster porn' that adds nothing to our lives. On the other hand, the writing is quite repetitive and he generalizes like mad throughout the middle chapters. Some of his advice is just impractical for the average person who needs to know if a local law is changing or if a road is closed. He sounds like someone who wants to live in the 1800s. I’d recommend it for the unique perspective, but don't take his 'cold turkey' advice as gospel. Just be more selective.

Frustrating experience because the physical copy I received actually had pages out of order, making the second half almost unreadable. Even putting the manufacturing issues aside, the author’s tone is incredibly patronizing and feels quite superior. He repeats the same few arguments for 160 pages without offering much in the way of peer-reviewed research or nuance. While I agree that 'churnalism' is a problem, his demand for a total cold-turkey ban is unrealistic for anyone who wants to remain a functional member of society. It feels like a high school debate performance rather than a serious philosophical work. I expected better from the author.

Look, I wanted to like this, but the author’s privilege is just too loud to ignore. He suggests that we should just ignore the news and let 'other people' tell us if something important happens. Who are these other people if everyone follows his advice? Also, claiming that consuming news is 'unintentionally supporting terrorism' is an absurd logical fallacy that made me want to throw the book across the room. It’s a very idealistic view that only works if you’re wealthy enough to not be affected by policy changes. There are some good points about mental health hidden in here, but they’re buried under a mountain of arrogance.